Classifying Science: A Government Proposal...1982 Bobby R. Inman

[David Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>]

While preparing for giving my congressional testimony, I was re-reading
this past item writen by Bobby Inman. I have abstracted the comments that I
found particularly thought provoking -- in particular the paragraphs I have
labeled ****. I thought maybe sending this out would also provoke some
thoughts from others.


Dave




Copyright 1982 McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Aviation Week and Space Technology


February 8, 1982


Classifying Science: A Government Proposal...


by Adm. Bobby R. Inman, USN, Deputy Director, Central Intelligence Agency


.....


   The U.S. is a leader in many--if not most--technical areas, and technical
data can enhance a nation's international strength. In terms of harm to the
national interest, it makes little difference whether the data are copied from
technicaljournals in a library or given away by a member of our society to an
agent of a foreign power.


   A different source of tension arises when scientists, completely separate
from the federal government, conduct research in areas where the federal
government has an obvious and preeminent role for society as a whole. One
example is the design of advanced weapons, especially nuclear ones. Another is
cryptography.  While nuclear weapons and cryptography are heavily dependent
on theoretical mathematics, there is no public business market for nuclear
weapons. Such a market, however, does exist for cryptographic concepts and gear
to protect certain types of business communications.


   Research into cryptography is an area of special, longstanding concern to
me. When I was director of the National Security Agency, I started a
dialogue to find a common ground regarding cryptography between
scientific freedom and national security. Considerable effort has gone into
that dialogue, by both scientists and public servants, and I think the
results so far have been reasonable and fair. Cryptologic research in the
business and academic arenas, no matter how useful, remains redundant to
the necessary efforts of the federal government to protect its own
communications. I still am concerned that indiscriminate publication of the
results of that research will come to the attention of foreign governments
and entities and, thereby, could cause irreversible and unnecessary harm to
U.S. national security interests.


   There are, in addition, other fields where publication of certain technical
information could affect the national security in a harmful way. Examples
include computer hardware and software, other electronic gear and techniques,
lasers, crop projections and manufacturing procedures.


 ****  I think it should also be pointed out that scientists blanket claims of
scientific freedom are somewhat disingenuous in light of the arrangements that
academicians routinely make with private, corporate sources of funding. For
example, academicians do not seem to have any serious difficulty with
restrictions on publications that arise from a corporate concern for trade
secret protection. The strong negative reaction from some scientists, over the
issue of protecting certain technical information for national security
reasons, seems to be based largely on the fact that the federal government,
rather than a corporation, is the source of the restriction. Yet this would
presume that the corporate, commercial interests somehow rise to a higher
level than do national security concerns. I could not disagree more
strongly.


   Scientists and engineers have served our society spectacularly in peace and
war. Key features of science--unfettered research, and the publication of the
results for validation by others and for use by all mankind--are essential to
the growth and development of science. Both our national security and our
economic development rely heavily on these features. Restrictions on
science and technology should only be considered for the most serious of
reasons.


****  But nowhere in the scientific ethos is there any requirement that
restrictions cannot or should not, when necessary, be placed on science.
Scientists do not immunize themselves from social responsibility simply because
they are engaged in a scientific pursuit. Society has recognized over time that
certain kinds of scientific inquiry can endanger society as a whole and has
applied either directly, or through scientific/ethical constraints,
restrictions on the kind and amount of research that can be done in those
areas.